|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 31 2019 07:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:On January 31 2019 02:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2019 02:21 Sermokala wrote:
-22 and a wind chill of -40. Still got the paper in a T-shirt and sweatpants. Here in palatine, il it's -20 with the same wind chill. I left KC for this. Is it the premise of 2012 or Day After Tomorrow yet? Its actually as accurate today after tomorrow. The reason why its so cold is beacuse its the air thats suppose to directly over the polar caps. Its a polar vortex of cold where the air pressure is low enough to bring air from as high in the atmosphere as its safe to. This weather system is actually a result of global warming as it destabilizes the weather patterns that are normally in place to prevent this from happening. Sunday, where I live it will be 42 degrees, Thats global warming chaos for you. I can't imagine how the Somalian immigrants are doing I hope we don't have some horror story about that in the coming days. Is there any weather that wouldn't affirm your conviction in Global Warming? Just wondering. It's cold. It's AGW. It's warm. It's AGW. Less than typical amount of storms. AGW. More than typical AGW. Also, please stop using weather as a corollary to climate. You're about as tone deaf as the people who use this weather to say see - Global Warming doesn't exist.
Entropy/enthalpy are 8th grade science terms that easily covers that.
A more energetic system necessarily has more randomness. This can push both extremes, although what we dub global warming is the increase in energy of the system as a whole.
|
Thanks Drone (as usual).
Wegandi, we aren't making it up as we go. One of the results of global warming has been predicted to be more frequent extreme weather events. Here is an extreme weather event. It's added to the list.
|
On January 31 2019 07:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think vaccinations are a difficult issue to handle politically. I think vaccinations are great and that all kids should get them, I don't think parents should be fine to do whatever, but I also don't want to take kids from parents who don't vaccinate their children if they are otherwise loving and caring parents. (Many are.) I think 'abuse' is of the type of severity where it warrants placing kids in foster homes, and this doesn't cut it.
Before vaccination (hundredsof)tousands children/people died.
After they didn'nt.
Case closed.
If you don't vaccinate, your an asshole. If your parents didn't get you the shots - get them.
THIS IS NOT HARD. Its also not up for discussion, its simple ---> don't be an asshole.
There is no counter argument, none. If you don't do it, your an asshole. Fullstop.
|
Well at least you guys are honest. There is nothing in your worldview to falsify (as Popper would define it as such). AGW has basically become a religion.
|
On January 31 2019 08:10 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 07:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think vaccinations are a difficult issue to handle politically. I think vaccinations are great and that all kids should get them, I don't think parents should be fine to do whatever, but I also don't want to take kids from parents who don't vaccinate their children if they are otherwise loving and caring parents. (Many are.) I think 'abuse' is of the type of severity where it warrants placing kids in foster homes, and this doesn't cut it. Before vaccination (hundredsof)tousands children/people died. After they didn'nt. Case closed. If you don't vaccinate, your an asshole. If your parents didn't get you the shots - get them. THIS IS NOT HARD. Its also not up for discussion, its simple ---> don't be an asshole. There is no counter argument, none. If you don't do it, your an asshole. Fullstop.
Pretty much agreed on all counts. But! the other side will be quick to remind you that they have a RIGHT to be an asshole.
|
On January 31 2019 08:25 Wegandi wrote:
Well at least you guys are honest. There is nothing in your worldview to falsify (as Popper would define it as such). AGW has basically become a religion.
You seem to aggressively agree with science on most topics and are willing to mock people and countries who (in your view) don't. Except on this subject, that just happens to be the subject your political leaning has a very public problem with. Sure you're not projecting with that 'religious' stuff?
|
On January 31 2019 08:25 Wegandi wrote:
Well at least you guys are honest. There is nothing in your worldview to falsify (as Popper would define it as such). AGW has basically become a religion. Your right, advanced enough technology is indistinguishable from magic and you apparently never learned how weather and climate work or interact.
I understand how it might seem like a religion based on miracles.
|
On January 31 2019 08:25 Wegandi wrote:
Well at least you guys are honest. There is nothing in your worldview to falsify (as Popper would define it as such). AGW has basically become a religion.
The average temperature of the world is rising. If that were not to be the case, then we'd have reason to question AGW. Locally extreme cold waves don't do much one way or the other.
|
On January 31 2019 08:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 08:25 Wegandi wrote:
Well at least you guys are honest. There is nothing in your worldview to falsify (as Popper would define it as such). AGW has basically become a religion. You seem to aggressively agree with science on most topics and are willing to mock people and countries who (in your view) don't. Except on this subject, that just happens to be the subject your political leaning has a very public problem with. Sure you're not projecting with that 'religious' stuff?
That is because on this subject more than almost any other the epistemology of its adherents are ... absurd and closest matching to religion. If any and all weather events and climate data are immediately slammed with a causal link to AGW there can be no falsification (and it tends to a develop a remarkably rigid ideology like religion) and without the ability to falsify it can hardly be classed as science. On top of that its adherents paint doomsday and armageddon which to me requires a significantly higher bar of evidence to pass, which to me it clearly has not. Most models and predictions are wrong and our understanding is woefully inadequate for such a complex system. I'd argue theoretical physics (while clearly a component of climatology) is more understood than climate systems. People point to Venus and say ah hah see what CO2 does, but I say see most other planets and our complete lack of understanding of their climates and how it works. Just in our system Jupiter and Neptune are significant outliers. So, yeah I have a problem with the public face of AGW. Before we completely reorganize society I expect extraordinary evidence for extraodinary claims.
|
On January 31 2019 08:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 08:25 Wegandi wrote:
Well at least you guys are honest. There is nothing in your worldview to falsify (as Popper would define it as such). AGW has basically become a religion. Your right, advanced enough technology is indistinguishable from magic and you apparently never learned how weather and climate work or interact. I understand how it might seem like a religion based on miracles.
People like this don't do any favors.
|
But see Wegandi, you are being dishonest there. It's not 'any and all weather events'. You just added that because it allowed you to make your point.
|
On January 31 2019 08:45 Nebuchad wrote:
But see Wegandi, you are being dishonest there. It's not 'any and all weather events'. You just added that because it allowed you to make your point.
Read the last page. I explicitly asked this question.
|
United States24740 Posts
I think there's a difference between people saying "look at this weather, it's further proof of climate change" and "no, your argument that weather event X helps to disprove climate change is false because climate change actually predicts such weather" because the latter isn't making an illogical argument for climate change, it is simply refuting an illogical argument against climate change, and yet the two types of statements sometimes get lumped together by folks who like to argue against the principles of climate change.
|
On January 31 2019 09:06 micronesia wrote:
I think there's a difference between people saying "look at this weather, it's further proof of climate change" and "no, your argument that weather event X helps to disprove climate change is false because climate change actually predicts such weather" because the latter isn't making an illogical argument for climate change, it is simply refuting an illogical argument against climate change, and yet the two types of statements sometimes get lumped together by folks who like to argue against the principles of climate change.
What are we calling it now? Climate change...well sure then it can't be wrong because thats what climates do - they change. If by climate change you mean AGW, well I'd argue it has no meaning if its predictions predict every weather event. Less Hurricanes in the atlantic, but some extreme weather event somewhere else on the globe - AGW. Record low temps - AGW. Record high temps - AGW. Anomalous weather - AGW. That was my point. There isnt any weather event or longitudinal climate data that can falsify the theory because the theory encompasses everything. Hence my religion comment. Plus I can't stand the people who will shout down people saying see record low temps all over the US - AGW doesn't exist, but then in the next sentence will use that weather as proof (of AGW) when they just lambasted the other sod for using weather in an argument about climate. Which is it guys.
|
Vaccines and climate change happen to be two issues that both perfectly demonstrate how the average person is not equipped to make life and policy decisions when the models in question are probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Suppose you are betting on the outcome of a coin flip. You've been told that the coin may or may not be weighted, and the coin is flipped 4 times beforehand--and comes up heads 3 times and tails 1 time. Can you say that the coin is weighted towards heads? Of course not, the sample size is way too small for that. Then what are you betting on? Obviously you would bet on heads. Even if you don't know that the coin is weighted toward heads, the likelihood that it is weighted towards heads is higher than the likelihood that it is weighted toward tails. Even though your degree of certainty is low, the fact that your expected value is higher when betting on heads means that your decisions should favor betting on heads, then re-evaluating as you get new data. It would be completely stupid to bet on tails, even with that low degree of certainty.
This is deeply unsatisfying to many people because they hate being on the bad side of variance. People naturally think in a results-oriented way and will always be quick to jump to the belief that decisions that produced bad outcomes were bad decisions. And so they will fixate on the one time that the less-likely outcome occurred. Anti-vaxxers are betting on tails. Climate change deniers are betting on tails.Their belief that a single adverse event or counterexample represents a failure of the entire model belies a pre-modern understanding of science, where knowledge was deterministic rather than probabilistic. But that's not how any of this works anymore, and that's not how policy-making should work. You don't need absolute certainty in your models to drive how you make decisions for life or for public policy. So long as your current data ascribes positive expected value to your decisions, it is valid to make those decisions, and make changes as new data changes your models and way of thinking.
The "doomsday scenario" sensationalism that Wegandi is railing against is really just a way for the scientific community to sell climate change to a populace that has a horrendously poor understanding of probabilistic systems. It's not how the models actually work.
On January 31 2019 07:54 Amui wrote:
Is there any weather that wouldn't affirm your conviction in Global Warming?
The answer is that a period in which weather has low variance from the norm over an extended period of time would probably require a re-evaluation of the model. "Business as usual"-type weather, basically. But that's not really what's been observed at any point for the past few years. Deviations from the norm are exactly what we're seeing a lot of.
|
On January 31 2019 09:14 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 09:06 micronesia wrote:
I think there's a difference between people saying "look at this weather, it's further proof of climate change" and "no, your argument that weather event X helps to disprove climate change is false because climate change actually predicts such weather" because the latter isn't making an illogical argument for climate change, it is simply refuting an illogical argument against climate change, and yet the two types of statements sometimes get lumped together by folks who like to argue against the principles of climate change. What are we calling it now? Climate change...well sure then it can't be wrong because thats what climates do - they change. If by climate change you mean AGW, well I'd argue it has no meaning if its predictions predict every weather event. Less Hurricanes in the atlantic, but some extreme weather event somewhere else on the globe - AGW. Record low temps - AGW. Record high temps - AGW. Anomalous weather - AGW. That was my point. There isnt any weather event or longitudinal climate data that can falsify the theory because the theory encompasses everything. Hence my religion comment. Plus I can't stand the people who will shout down people saying see record low temps all over the US - AGW doesn't exist, but then in the next sentence will use that weather as proof (of AGW) when they just lambasted the other sod for using weather in an argument about climate. Which is it guys.
The cold air doesn't magically appear. It's the entire planet warming, and the US is only a small part of it despite what people may believe. Warmer air elsewhere has displaced it from the arctic.
Doesn't change the fact that if you average air temps across the world, year over year it's getting warmer and warmer.
|
The issue here is 'any and all weather'. If Wegandi was facing an argument based on any and all weather, he would be right. But he isn't. And I'm hesitant to believe he doesn't know that.
|
United States24740 Posts
On January 31 2019 09:14 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 09:06 micronesia wrote:
I think there's a difference between people saying "look at this weather, it's further proof of climate change" and "no, your argument that weather event X helps to disprove climate change is false because climate change actually predicts such weather" because the latter isn't making an illogical argument for climate change, it is simply refuting an illogical argument against climate change, and yet the two types of statements sometimes get lumped together by folks who like to argue against the principles of climate change. What are we calling it now? Climate change...well sure then it can't be wrong because thats what climates do - they change. If by climate change you mean AGW, well I'd argue it has no meaning if its predictions predict every weather event. Less Hurricanes in the atlantic, but some extreme weather event somewhere else on the globe - AGW. Record low temps - AGW. Record high temps - AGW. Anomalous weather - AGW. That was my point. There isnt any weather event or longitudinal climate data that can falsify the theory because the theory encompasses everything. Hence my religion comment. Plus I can't stand the people who will shout down people saying see record low temps all over the US - AGW doesn't exist, but then in the next sentence will use that weather as proof (of AGW) when they just lambasted the other sod for using weather in an argument about climate. Which is it guys.
You are right (save for the underlined portion). Neither side should point to weather and try to use it as evidence for or against climate change. This acknowledgement does not contradict what I said earlier. There are other types of data besides today's weather that you can look at to try to determine if the theories surrounding climate change are correct or incorrect. I see people point to hot weather and try to argue in favor of climate change, and they are just as wrong as people pointing to cold weather and arguing the opposite. The problem I brought up was the inappropriate lumping together of certain behaviors such as the example I gave above.
|
So apparently the Russians "hacked" Mueller's investigation, and are trying to play it off as a hack, while Mueller is saying they weren't hacked, but rather the documents were leaked by the attorneys of the company that funded the actual hacking operations of Russia in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/30/mueller-evidence-leaked-online-russians
Evidence gathered by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, was obtained by Russians and leaked online in an attempt to discredit his inquiry into Moscow’s interference in US politics, prosecutors said on Wednesday.
A court filing by Mueller’s office said more than 1,000 files that it shared confidentially with attorneys for indicted Russian hackers later appeared to have been uploaded to a filesharing site and promoted by a Twitter account.
“We’ve got access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database as we hacked Russian server with info from the Russian troll case,” a tweet from the account said. “You can view all the files Mueller had about the IRA and Russian collusion. Enjoy the reading!”
Edit adding another reference
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-says-russians-using-his-discovery-materials-disinformation-effort-n964811
|
On January 31 2019 09:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2019 09:14 Wegandi wrote:On January 31 2019 09:06 micronesia wrote:
I think there's a difference between people saying "look at this weather, it's further proof of climate change" and "no, your argument that weather event X helps to disprove climate change is false because climate change actually predicts such weather" because the latter isn't making an illogical argument for climate change, it is simply refuting an illogical argument against climate change, and yet the two types of statements sometimes get lumped together by folks who like to argue against the principles of climate change. What are we calling it now? Climate change...well sure then it can't be wrong because thats what climates do - they change. If by climate change you mean AGW, well I'd argue it has no meaning if its predictions predict every weather event. Less Hurricanes in the atlantic, but some extreme weather event somewhere else on the globe - AGW. Record low temps - AGW. Record high temps - AGW. Anomalous weather - AGW. That was my point. There isnt any weather event or longitudinal climate data that can falsify the theory because the theory encompasses everything. Hence my religion comment. Plus I can't stand the people who will shout down people saying see record low temps all over the US - AGW doesn't exist, but then in the next sentence will use that weather as proof (of AGW) when they just lambasted the other sod for using weather in an argument about climate. Which is it guys. You are right (save for the underlined portion). Neither side should point to weather and try to use it as evidence for or against climate change. This acknowledgement does not contradict what I said earlier. There are other types of data besides today's weather that you can look at to try to determine if the theories surrounding climate change are correct or incorrect. I see people point to hot weather and try to argue in favor of climate change, and they are just as wrong as people pointing to cold weather and arguing the opposite. The problem I brought up was the inappropriate lumping together of certain behaviors such as the example I gave above.
Right. One prediction is that Hurricane strength will increase as AGW accelerates, but when you look at the Atlantic Hurricane data over the past 50 years, that's not true, even while surface temps. are increasing. There must be something else going on. Yet, because of the rigidity of AGW you can't use data like this to say...maybe something else is going on let's see what that is. You're chastised as a "heretic" and yelled at, called names, etc. Worst yet, the one year that was anomalous (2005) everyone and their mother who believed in AGW used it to beat in the heads of the skeptics. There's a hypocritical double-standard. I hate it. In fact, if there's something that will dig me in even if I'm wrong (and I freely admit, of course it is a possibility; something that seems very rare for most AGW adherents), it's the smug hypocrites who want to radically re-organize society when the bar of evidence has not remotely been passed to propose such changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
